1 3 topic chosen from week 3: Divide of Rights in the

topic chosen from week 3: Divide of Rights in the LGBTQ Community
The controversy surrounding the rights of LGBTQ groups concerning the promotion of requisite laws that govern their rights is a fundamental factor that can influence the democracy of the group. The American political class has been divided by the phenomenon, especially after the supreme court ruling reversed the initial gains established concerning same-sex sexual orientation. From the theoretical frameworks covered, the ethical egoistic approach of the matter is that self-interests are to be pursued by every one of the groups. Therefore, incorporating the diverging views concerning the topic of “the dilemma in the divide of the rights of the LGBTQ group” is the fundamental factor that would undoubtedly provide the effectiveness of resolving the stalemate of the ethical dilemma regarding LGBTQ sexual rights.
The ethical egoist individual would perceive the topic as a merely socio-cultural dilemma that promotes self-interests between the opposing sides of the republicans and the democrats within the US jurisdiction. The conservative wing of the republicans projects the opinion that the same-sex plan should not be promoted within the American jurisdiction, for it would violate the socio-cultural dynamics of the American community (Corbett, 2022); (Rothstein, 2022). However, the democrats opine that the need to promote the same sex is a matter of advancing absolute democracy in society. Therefore, the scope of the opinions adopted about sexual freedom for the LGBTQ group is fundamental in realizing the operation’s sustainability. The ethical egoist would take the side of the republicans, for they advance the narrative that no individual is obligated to promote another individual’s needs (Rothstein, 2022). Therefore, the scope of determining the dimension of opinion that is to be advanced by ethical egoist individual perceives the creation of the responsible improvement to the quality of the respective quality of democracy and rights.
The conflict of interests between the demands of self and the community is a factor that rises within the context of promoting sexual rights for the LGBTQ group. From an ethical egoist approach, it is evident that self-determination is the approach that is to be maintained (Rothstein, 2022). By advocating for the system, the responsibility for promoting the group’s interests would be assumed by other groups, not the political class. However, it is the responsibility of the political course to ensure that the issues critically seeking to have the intervention of the community are promoted. The need to encourage community interest is the primary function responsible for advancing the respective improvisation that creates the overall progress (Rothstein, 2022). Thus, promoting the adoption of rights for LGBTQ groups is the responsibility of political leaders in Congress and the Senate legislative houses.
The social contract theory promotes the adoption of coexistence in a society being bidden by the respective principles that provide the moral and political rules of character by the members of the community. From this approach, the social contract ethicist would advance the narrative that the needs to promote the rights of the LGBTQ group following the democrats are the optimal cause of action (D’Olimpio, 2019). By seeking to promote their rights, it would be crucial for the community to endeavour to ensure that the rights of all members of the community are provided with the opportunity to promote sustainable coexistence. By focusing on the rights of the members of society, with LGBTQ being included, then the action of the democrats would e justified (D’Olimpio, 2019). This is the ultimate function responsible for attaining the critical program that would sustainably promote the rights of the LGBTQ group in American society. Thus, the social contract model promotes sustainable coexistence between community members.
The topic highly integrates the conflict of interest between personal and national obligations. In this scope, the movers of rights for the LGBTQs have personal responsibility for ensuring that their project is accomplished (D’Olimpio, 2019). On the other hand, for the national obligation, the movers of the recognition for the LGBTQ is the ultimate provision that highlights their progress. These are the advanced dynamics concerning promoting the integral approach for improving the organization’s scope. Achieving the respective conditions meant to realize the rights of the group is thus a significant factor in fostering individual progress in the operation of the group (D’Olimpio, 2019). Thus, managing these dynamic areas of conflict of interest is crucial in attaining the respective operation promotion.
The American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics provides that no clients need to be discriminated against because of the sexual orientation chosen. From this scope, the counsellors must offer their services indiscriminately to ensure that the rights of the individual members of the LGBTQ family acknowledge their protection for the rights of the association (American Counseling Association, 2019). The topic does not project any conflict of interest between the professionals in ACA or the family duties. Thus, adherence to the promise of professional conduct is the ultimate requirement for responsible progress in the operation dynamics.
The ethical dilemma created by the divide into the rights of the LGBTQ group provides the need to appreciate the rights of every member of society. The ethical egoist and social contract ethicist perspectives have contrasting provisions that help create divergent opinions concerning the matter. Furthermore, the political class between the democrats and the republicans have continually differed on the need to promote the operation’s sustainability. Thus, it is crucial to reflect on the rights of everyone in a society.
American Counseling Association. (2019). Ethical & Professional Standards. Counseling.org. https://www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/ethics
D’Olimpio, L. (2019). Moral education within the social contract: Whose contract is it anyway? Journal of Moral Education, 48(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1580565
Rothstein, J. K. (2022). Egoism and the Limits of Ethics. Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour, 4(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.33790/jmhsb1100161